Slashdot Mirror
Patent Reform Bill Approved by House Committee
Alex Forster pointed us to this PC World story that opens, "The House Committee on the Judiciary approved far-reaching legislation to reform the nation's patent system Wednesday.
The Patent Reform Act of 2007 largely reflects the IT sector's lobbying effort to curtail lengthy, expensive patent infringement lawsuits, but Wednesday's committee deliberations centered on finding compromises acceptable to opponents — namely the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, manufacturers, and large research universities — so that the bill could win approval.
Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., described the current patent system as inefficient, bogged down by inappropriate litigation rules, unreliably funded, and resulting in patents of "questionable quality." The bill would make it harder to secure a patent and easier for rivals to challenge one, and it would change how courts determine an infringed patent's value."
..would have been a better title. No real reform here. Just business as usual.
This bill is a small tweak of the system that cures the worst symptoms but does not fix the disease. It's at best a recognition that the US patent system is not perfect, and at worst a band-aid that will delay real reform.
There's no substantive changes, no change of the economic incentives that drive specialists to claim every plausible invention in the name of speculative future profits. As long as experts can claim exclusive ownership of the software commons, the patent system is broken, and it'll continue to punish real innovators by creating unpredictable risk.
Real innovators don't even seek patents. 80% of VC-funded software firms don't claim patents within four years of being funded. The whole patent system is a fraud, a tax on the consumer, and a blight on high-tech industries. This bill just perpetuates the fraud a little longer.
What is needed is a total review of what patents are for, why society should grant them, and how this should operate in a post-industrial world. Compare, for example, the trademark system (an industrial-age protection) with the domain name system (proper digital age protection of the same thing), and you see what could be possible.
My blog
1. Patent the patent bill.
2. Sue the government.
3. Profit!
Dear employee:
It has come to our attention that Congress will soon make it more difficult to patent out innovations. Under the new rules, some of our innovations such as our "two click on-line shopping" invention and our "three click shopping for healthcare" invention would be unpatentable.
Although shocking, our legal staff tells us that it is very unlikely that our existing patents will be nullified. We'll still have patent rights on three-click healthcare.
Please note that this is the time to ramp up the filing while we still have the chance! This week, Robert is planning to file "combination TV remote and firearm", "Fuel pump/ATM combination device", "guitar with integrated video display", and "Retail sales of iPod accessories made after 2008". People, PLEASE talk to Robert to get your filings in ASAP - because otherwise, we'll have to really innovate, and that will damage our bottom line.
Check out this article about how the Supreme Court earlier in the year revived the obviosness standard. This was one of several decisions that went against patent trolls, and leads me to believe that the justices actually read the newspaper. Now if Congress took less money from the trolls, perhaps there would be stronger legislative reform.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Thus spake the article:
The bill moves the patent system from a "first-to-invent" to a "first-to-file" system, but in another nod to large universities, the committee clarified a grace period on filing patent applications for inventors who disclose or publish inventions in advance of seeking a patent.
Does this mean that prior art can no longer invalidate a patent if the creator of the prior art never filed for one?
I recently saw an add for a razor, you know, the kind you use to shave with. Not electric mind you, just a plain old shaving razor. The advertisement said that this particular "new and improved" razor had 20 more patents that the previous model.
Seriously, how do you get 20+ patents out of a razor?
I think the math pseudo-code works like this:
IF [1 razor] >= [20 patents] THEN {ACTUAL-PATENT-VALUE} = {TRIVIAL}
Yet, the value of an "infringed" patent can be hundereds of thousands of dollars in court (if not millions).
Therefore, while I do believe the original idea of the patent was to protect honest innovation, it appears that all we are really doing these days is creating a litigation industry. The more patents you can attach to something, the greater the likelihood of generating additional revenue in court.
I'm not opposed to the idea of a patent, but it seems to me that businesses are simply "gaming the system" here....or am I missing something?
A goal is a dream with a deadline
There will be no real reform of the patent systems as long as congress is bought and paid for by campaign contributions.
And real reform means eliminating all software patents. And that will never happen as long as:
Microsoft Campaign Contributions: $8,907,025 (1999 - Present)
And I'm sure there are many other companies in the industry that throw dollars at congress. Source
FAQs are evil.
The Senate Judiciary Committee passed their own version of the bill (S. 1145) yesterday afternoon. The bi-partisan bills now move to a vote in the full House and Senate. Trolls beware...
The current Indian government is a coalition, and the Communist Party of India are one of the major members, without whose support the coalition would collapse.
Though I am staunchly in favour of the free market, I still must thank the communists for one thing - they made algorithms (mathematical and non mathematical), programs, business methods/models, and software in general unpatentable, by including it in the 2005 Patent Amendments Act.
Before that, software was patentable in the limited sense of it being a component of hardware - like the microcode of a chip, for example - basically at the point where the differences between hardware and software became a bit blurred. Now, however, it falls under the list of things which are explicitly unpatentable.
I find it extremely ironic, and a bit sad at the same time, that it is the Communists Party of India which essentially stood up for freedom and a truly freer market.
Wednesday's committee deliberations centered on finding compromises acceptable to opponents -- namely the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, manufacturers, and large research universities -- so that the bill could win approval.
I wasn't aware that the biotech industries, manufacturers, and large research universities were the ones voting on it.
Your sig(k) has been stolen. There is a puff of smoke!
Wednesday's committee deliberations centered on finding compromises acceptable to opponents -- namely the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, manufacturers, and large research universities Am I the only one who thinks how powerful interests have to be consulted (so they can stay powerful) before a bill passes is a pretty F****D-UP kind of democracy? It looks like whether we have communism or capitalism, if either system gets too hoary and entrenched the people get pwned.
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.